Re: The need for apport hooks
On 06/08/11 23:46, Bryce Harrington wrote: > In any case, these types of reports post-release are most useful in > aggregate rather than as individual bug reports. If they were filed in > some ultra simple crash database (with no signup required of the user) > we could get most of the value without incurring a lot of extra bug > labor. Bryce Something like https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/ ? - It doesn't require users to sign up - It collects duplicates together - Reports can be filtered by product / version / date - Provides some interesting statistics (eg, "Top Changers" is pretty useful for spotting issues early, and rate of crashes per user) - Can associate bug reports with crash signatures - The user can check back on reports they submitted (about:crashes in Firefox will show you this) Also, Breakpad (which is the client software) makes it easy to submit crashes from Firefox and Thunderbird - the crash dialog has a checkbox to enable this, a text area to enter relevant information (which is sometimes used to enter various profanities) and a way to provide an e-mail address (kept private on the server). We actually use Breakpad for Firefox and Thunderbird in Ubuntu already, rather than Apport - primarily so upstream have some visibility of crashes from Ubuntu users. Regards Chris -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: The need for apport hooks (was: Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions)
Rick Spencer [2011-08-08 7:17 +0200]: > Has this very thing not been proposed? We should discuss doing this for > 12.04. It was indeed, at the last rally. The idea was to move the hooks out of the packages to a network location. This is already done with the bug patterns, but as hooks are executable code, we need to spend some effort on authenticating them and verifying them on the client side, so it's not a trivial change. Also, this breaks some use cases: Right now you can run apport-bug on an offline/firewalled server, take the resulting report file to a desktop and report it from there. If the hooks are only available from the network, you can't report (sensible) bugs from offline computers any more. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: The need for apport hooks (was: Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions)
On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 22:46 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 07:17:52AM +0200, Rick Spencer wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 15:46 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > > > > > > > I think we are doing it wrong: we should collect > > > > crashes on all supported releases. > > > > > > I agree. As designed, apport files a new bug report for each crash, > > > which can quickly lead to excessive numbers of dupe bug reports (there > > > are ways of making apport auto-dupe, but this takes effort to set up and > > > isn't always 100% reliable). This can quickly become unmanageable > > > especially for packages that lack someone to keep an eye on the bug > > > reports. > > > > > > In any case, these types of reports post-release are most useful in > > > aggregate rather than as individual bug reports. If they were filed in > > > some ultra simple crash database (with no signup required of the user) > > > we could get most of the value without incurring a lot of extra bug > > > labor. > > Has this very thing not been proposed? We should discuss doing this for > > 12.04. > > It's been propsed and discussed previously, like ScottK mentioned. The > issue has been finding someone with time to work on it. I think we should be able to fix this for 12.04. Cheers, Rick -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: The need for apport hooks (was: Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions)
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 07:17:52AM +0200, Rick Spencer wrote: > On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 15:46 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > > > > > I think we are doing it wrong: we should collect > > > crashes on all supported releases. > > > > I agree. As designed, apport files a new bug report for each crash, > > which can quickly lead to excessive numbers of dupe bug reports (there > > are ways of making apport auto-dupe, but this takes effort to set up and > > isn't always 100% reliable). This can quickly become unmanageable > > especially for packages that lack someone to keep an eye on the bug > > reports. > > > > In any case, these types of reports post-release are most useful in > > aggregate rather than as individual bug reports. If they were filed in > > some ultra simple crash database (with no signup required of the user) > > we could get most of the value without incurring a lot of extra bug > > labor. > Has this very thing not been proposed? We should discuss doing this for > 12.04. It's been propsed and discussed previously, like ScottK mentioned. The issue has been finding someone with time to work on it. Bryce -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: The need for apport hooks (was: Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions)
On Monday, August 08, 2011 01:17:52 AM Rick Spencer wrote: > On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 15:46 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > > I think we are doing it wrong: we should collect > > > crashes on all supported releases. > > > > I agree. As designed, apport files a new bug report for each crash, > > which can quickly lead to excessive numbers of dupe bug reports (there > > are ways of making apport auto-dupe, but this takes effort to set up and > > isn't always 100% reliable). This can quickly become unmanageable > > especially for packages that lack someone to keep an eye on the bug > > reports. > > > > In any case, these types of reports post-release are most useful in > > aggregate rather than as individual bug reports. If they were filed in > > some ultra simple crash database (with no signup required of the user) > > we could get most of the value without incurring a lot of extra bug > > labor. > > Has this very thing not been proposed? We should discuss doing this for > 12.04. It's been proposed off and on for years. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: The need for apport hooks (was: Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions)
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 15:46 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > > > I think we are doing it wrong: we should collect > > crashes on all supported releases. > > I agree. As designed, apport files a new bug report for each crash, > which can quickly lead to excessive numbers of dupe bug reports (there > are ways of making apport auto-dupe, but this takes effort to set up and > isn't always 100% reliable). This can quickly become unmanageable > especially for packages that lack someone to keep an eye on the bug > reports. > > In any case, these types of reports post-release are most useful in > aggregate rather than as individual bug reports. If they were filed in > some ultra simple crash database (with no signup required of the user) > we could get most of the value without incurring a lot of extra bug > labor. Has this very thing not been proposed? We should discuss doing this for 12.04. Cheers, Rick -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: The need for apport hooks (was: Re: SRUs for typo fixes in descriptions)
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 09:34:33AM -0500, C de-Avillez wrote: > 3. Apport is disabled on stable releases -- which pretty much means > no hooks are driven. Only for automatic crash collection. 'ubuntu-bug ' still works, and for some packages like xorg and others it's the recommended way of reporting bugs in the stable release. > 5. When an user complains about a bug/crash on stable, we suggest to > enable apport, repeat, and report. > > I think we are doing it wrong: we should collect > crashes on all supported releases. I agree. As designed, apport files a new bug report for each crash, which can quickly lead to excessive numbers of dupe bug reports (there are ways of making apport auto-dupe, but this takes effort to set up and isn't always 100% reliable). This can quickly become unmanageable especially for packages that lack someone to keep an eye on the bug reports. In any case, these types of reports post-release are most useful in aggregate rather than as individual bug reports. If they were filed in some ultra simple crash database (with no signup required of the user) we could get most of the value without incurring a lot of extra bug labor. Bryce -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
